I’ve been thinking a lot about the trillions of dollars that have been spent or allocated in Obama’s plan to, supposedly, get the economy back on track. There is a lot about this that has a bad smell to it, but one aspect is particularly putrid.

Let’s imagine a friend came to you and asked for a loan to enable him to keep his home and feed his family. You would love to be able to help him out, but you have no cash. Feeling like you must do something for your friend, you offer to give him your CreditPlus card that has an unlimited line of credit. He is very appreciative and you feel you have done a good thing.

About three months later, your CreditPlus statement comes in the mail and shows new purchases of $11, 600. You are shocked but decide to calmly ask your friend how he and the family are doing and see what he says. He is up front and tells you how much he’s spent on your card before you even ask. You let him know that you are glad to have been able to help. He then says he is very appreciative and he is sorry that he has created that amount of a burden for you to have to deal with in the future. He says he hopes you will be able to pay the debt without too much trouble. You are flabbergasted that he expects you to pay off the debt that he has borrowed from you.

Now, back to reality.

We have all been told that our economy is in such bad shape that trillions of dollars have been "borrowed" from the taxpayers by the government to enable it to stimulate the economy. We have been told that each taxpayer now has approximately $118,000 worth of debt that will have to be paid back in the coming years, and our grandkids may have to payback some of the borrowed money too.

Never in my life have I loaned money to someone and then been required to PAY IT BACK.

Does anyone else see my point? Am I right in suspecting that this may be a scam on the People?

Obama has reached into the future and confiscated a large amount of our future earnings to do whatever it is he is doing. He then tells us that that money will have to be paid back, BY US, THE LENDER.

Huh uh. No way am I goin’ for this crapola. Obama may be stupid and crooked enough to think he can get away with it, but he has never dealt with Glenn Flowers on a one-to-one basis before. And if he is as smart as he thinks he is, he wouldn’t start now.

If this is our money being used then I expect that money to be returned to me and every other taxpayer by crediting us as having pre-paid that amount in taxes, or by issuing us a check for the $118,000 they said was each taxpayer’s burden. I do not intend to have my future earnings garnished by $118,000 and then pay that $118,000 back in taxes.

Have I assessed this situation correctly, or am I way off base here?

In an earlier post, I attempted to accurately refute claims by some, including the John Birch Society and Congress, that the Articles of Confederation were abolished and replaced with the Constitution in a "runaway" constitutional convention acting beyond their authority and imposing their will on the colonies. This so called runaway convention was, actually, the Annapolis Convention to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government. It was not a constitutional convention at all, but was a fact finding convention of delegates from the states, ordered by the Congress assembled, to determine what needed to be done to alleviate the problems they were having under the Articles of Confederation. Due to the absence of delegates from several states, that convention adjourned and submitted a report to Congress stating…

To the Honorable, the Legislatures of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York-

Congress being assembled did just that and the Constitutional Congress convened in 1787, and produced the Constitution and Bill of Rights for ratification by the states. The Constitution was unanimously ratified and became the law of the land September 25, 1789, and the Bill of Rights was also unanimously ratified and became effective December 15, 1791.

There was no secret convention that abolished the Articles of Confederation, and it was a decision by the Congress, not a few rogues, to scrap the Articles and start over, using the Magna Carta as a guide and template.

The reason behind the myth of the "Runaway Con-Con" spread by John Birchers, members of Congress, and even constitutional educators and attorneys is subject enough to warrant separate treatment.

Glenn Flowers

The state of the union is not what it should be, to say the least. The free, public educational system has turned out a generation, maybe two or more, that have no idea of what an exceptional and near perfect document the Constitution is, and what that has meant in world history. Having been born here and never having to defend our nation against a direct threat to our borders or way of life, those Americans who came of age to vote in the past decade or two have no appreciation of what America has become and what she has done to aid all the people of the world in the 230 plus years of our existence.

Instead, the leftist idealism of social justice and economic equality have been the mantra to which these Americans have been raised. Fairness, above all else, is the perceived goal all the time being a means to the ultimate goal of total power over the people and their lives by the elitist, all knowing rulers.

When Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency he took up the cause of this generation and promised change that would bring a hope of real, tangible equality of all the people regardless of ability or merit. Obama promised what the teachers and professors had always said it should be and these ungreatful, spoiled children of America’s freedoms and greatness believed they could improve America per their ideals and it would be utopia for all. It is because of these two factors of our history, the educational brainwashing and the appearance of Barack Obama on the scene, that we see the Constitution being waylaid, ignored, side-stepped, and ridiculed as ancient, outdated, and in need of overhaul or outright abandonement.

Those of us who were raised by conscientious, responsible parents who taught us the truth about America’s unique history, those who have made their life’s work the defense and security of the people, have, for decades, seen and were worried by the intentional erosion of the government’s adherence to the Constitution, and have been witness to the corruption of our nation’s laws that was so dilligently forseen and excellently provided for in the Constitution.

The federal government has become the very thing the Constitution was written to prevent, a tyrannical collection of elitists competing for the spoils of their wanton fleecing of the people from whom they received their powers. This has been, in large part, due to the ever widening of responsibility the federal government has claimed and the willingness of the people to let them claim it, all in the name of equality. The left column of politicians see the government as being the cure-all and pre-imminent decider of all things, while the right side of the matter believes that the Constitution is near perfect enough to provide, as written, a solution to all needs and misdeeds that our nation will experience. The very basic premises of the Democratic Party, entitlements to the un-entitled, equality of living standards for all, governmental regulation of all things in society, are all in direct opposition to the intent of the Founders and to the word and purpose of the Constitution.

The purpose of the founders was limited government that served the will of the people, guaranteed the safety and sovereignty of the people, and imposed no restrictions not necessary to an orderly, civil pursuit of what each person decided to pursue. Benjamin Franklin said of government that the most ideal form is none at all, but society, being composed of individuals, needed some form of organization if it were to be a successful society. These men, of English heritage, looked upon the parliamentary system of Great Britain as a template of what could be accomplished, and they took the opportunity of being isolated from England to not only rebel against the king’s tyranny, but to break from the empire completely and establish their own society.

This was to be a grand experiment of man’s ability to govern himself without having the onerous royalty handing down privelages and allowances from on high. No time in history had ever seen this bold, assertive process tried, much less succeed. All governing to that time had been by monarchy or empirical conquest, and the rights and privelages handed down at the will of the ultimate ruler. This new nation was going to give the people the authority to govern themselves as they saw fit and as the Creator had given them the inherent right to do. All of the world’s powers were betting that the new nation would fail and become an autocracy, if, and that was a huge if, they could win their seperation by arms against the premier military of the world.

We have only to read the Declaration of Independence to understand the tyranny these British Americans had come to know. English soldiers being quartered in the homes of citizens, writs of action being issued against them with no jurisprudence, taxation of every aspect of life while having no representation in the process, property being seized or destroyed without cause, and, eventually, the attempt to disarm the people and impose harsh retribution for their disloyalty to the king. It was with these circumstances prevailing that the seperation from, and war with England was undertaken.

We know the outcome of that war and we know the Constitution was created to insure that the government would always be subject to the will of the people. The seven articles and ten ammendments of the original Constitution were so constructed that each clause and section was in support of all the rest. Every word of every paragraph was argued over, written and re-written to leave no doubt as to their intention and effect. Men of sound mind and being well educated pondered over what was to be, how it was to be implemented, and how that was in support of the whole. Benjamin Franklin, having seen the divisiveness and stubborness that these men were prone to in their work, after reaching an agreement as to the content of the document, admonished the delegates to not leave from here with the word of conflict and disagreement overcome on their tongues, but to agree to leave for home professing the great sense of cooperation, fair play, and agreement in all things as unanimous so as to give no reason for foes to rejoice in their need to compromise, but to present to all, especially foreign eyes, a spirit of brotherhood, morality, and accomplishment of all they had sought.

We citizens of today have seen the near demolition of the Constitution, not as legal ammendments to it or the repeal of its foundation, but by the re-interpretation of not only what was written and intended, but what "should have been", or was implied to be the meaning and purpose of its text. Where a clause of an article stated the pre-emptory action to be this or that, it has been interpolated to also include this or that was to be done if the clause did not prohibit it. Certain assurances that the government would not become intrusive in the affairs of men have been wrongly enforced as meaning that no man would be allowed to affect the same affairs off limits to government. If it isn’t distictly prohibited, an action by government allowed under other circumstances has been deemed to be demanded under all possible turns of events. But, a bit of insight into the creation of the federal government can be gained by reading the notes and thoughts of those who participated in that creation, and of the grievances filed against the government by the states when they saw the authority of the federals being in opposition to the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson, in drafting the Kentucky Resolutions in 1798, began with why the states had formed the General Government.

This supports in re-affirmation Article 1, Sect 8-10 and the 10th Ammendment to the Constitution, the former granting and limiting the explicit law making power of the congress, and the latter proclaiming that any power not delegated to congress by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Jefferson continues his prosecution of the government with more detail.

In the subsequent resolutions Jefferson proves his case against the federal government, congress specifically, of enacting law which it had not been specifically empowered to enact, and that because congress had overstepped their constitutional powers the laws were invalid, of no power or force of law, and that those powers NOT given to congress were retained by the states or the people.

In the seventh resolution, Jefferson addresses the government’s "construction" of additional, implied power to those parts of the Constitution that were meant to allow some freedom of legislation in their execution of the powers already specified.

Friends, we are not, today, in the same straits that the founders faced. We have no soldiers in our streets to impose laws on the public, much less being made to provide them room and board. We are not, as yet, being arrested for voicing our opinions or opposition to the actions of the government. We are not, as of this date, being subjected to prosecution under whimsically drafted and illegal directives having no force of law. Not yet do we face the tyranny described as being unsufferable as to warrant armed revolt. Not yet. But when that day does come, and I hope it does not, the actions we as Americans take in securing the federal government’s inability to oppress will not be an overthrow of government, but WILL be the dutiful arrest and incarceration of elected officials who acted in direct violation of the law of the land by the authority having the jurisdiction to do so, we, the people. Instead of overthrowing government we will be restoring the lawful restrictions on a government guilty of acting with the color of authority not prescribed to it.

If that time is inevitable, we the people would do ourselves great favor to have predestined the return to power of the last legal officers holding those essential positions only until proper elections can be held. No suspending of the Constitution, no declaration of martial law, no legal battles over the authority of the people to act need be endured by the people. We, the people, having suffered the insufferable for longer than should be suffered, will have the support and sworn allegiance of all patriots to that Constitution we are re-affirming as the law of the land, according to that law of the land.

Until that day comes, if ever it does, we, the people can still act to peacefully regain control of the federal works. We can insisit that our state legislatures adopt resolutions of sovereignty similar to those drafted by Jefferson for Kentucky. We can legally withhold all revenue from going to the feds by establishing the state as our proxy in tax collection. All employers and other sources of revenue for the feds can be made to abide by state laws in their withholding and remittance of that money. Banks can be helpful by not making any transfers of funds by or for the federal treasury. It was the states that created the federal government for limited purposes, and it is the states acting with the authority of the people who can first stop the usurpation of power, indict those responsible for the violations of the law, and re-establish a federal government that is absolutely limited, once again, to the specific roles granted to it by the Constitution. In one fell swoop ALL the entitlement legislation, tax codes, federal bureaus of everything, the SCOTUS, the EPA, all gun control laws, the destruction of religious freedoms, the power of the biased media, all of it, can be eliminated. Just reinstitute the Constitution, as written. It is the Supreme Law of the Land. Let us regain our control of government by obeying, protecting, and defending that which affirms our power to do just that. There can be no effective opposition if we all act in accordance with it.

The are hundreds of veterans and active duty military, law enforcement officers on the job and retired, old and young, marines and airmen, men and women who have all posted a pledge, sometimes anonymous, to remain Semper Fi. Their motto? "Not on my watch".

Oath-Keepers

Glenn Flowers

There is a phenomena occuring within the USA that, in my opinion, is generated by a selfish, ungrateful attitude in some people who are so comfortable and secure as to be spolied by and at the same time ashamed of the life of ease and openness our country has provided for them. These people publicly spout their contempt for the government and proudly whimper that they are ashamed of their citizenship. It is to these oblivious few that I offer some brotherly advice and admonishment.

Every once in a while it becomes necessary for Americans to reaffirm their priorities according to their desires and hopes for the future, essentially taking stock of where you are, what you want, and how you plan to get there, and evaluating your ability of attaining these goals via the methods you’ve adopted. The need for setting goals, overall, is obvious, but the choice of goals is not always so apparent. Reasons are personal and are not meant to be made public. But methods and attitude are not often kept secret and are usually noticed by anyone watching.

But a nation’s goals are, by their nature, intended to be a publicly scrutinized, intelligently debated set of commonly held hopes for the future of those who make up the population of the nation. For this reason, albeit not the primary reason, the citizens of the nation agree to be governed by an acceptable form of ruling body. The best government is individual self control.

This, though, is not practical for large populations because the more people there are the greater the number of predators who will prey on those trying to do right. For any significant census, a benevolent, central ruling organization is the least intrusive. Not the method of choice, but it has been shown to be the lesser evil of our choices.

We in the USA are fortunate to have had a remarkably astute and wisely intelligent group of people involved in the establishment of our democratic republic. For weeks and months these people labored over every single aspect of the form our government would take, argued intensely over every word and why and how it would be interpreted. You see, they had a very specific plan of the type of government they wanted.

Benjamin Franklin, who was not a voting delegate at the constitutional congress, was asked to give his opinion on the final draft of the constitution we have today. After explaining that he did not initially approve of it he said, "It astonishes me to find this system of government approaching so near to perfection as it does, and I think it will astonish our enemies who are waiting with confidence to hear that our counsels are confounded like those of Babel, and that our states are on the point of seperation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting each other’s throats."

He went on to say that, for the greater public good, he would give up his objections to the imperfections because he was not sure that it was not the best they could ever have. He went on to advise the delegates to not go home publicizing the differences and objections they had succesfully overcome, but to make a united front that could be a publicly proclaimed victory in that all had agreed on this constitution and had unanimously voted it in as law. Otherwise public opinion might be split again, especially in some not so friendly foreign courts.

Franklin knew very well the importance of unity in action and that successful action especially benefitted from unanimity and exhorted the delegates returning home to adopt an attitude of oneness and cohesion to the world. He also understood thoroughly the lift in spirit and boost to morale that news of a division in ranks gives to the enemies of an endeavor such as theirs and admonished the members to not let themselves be a source of any such boost in the hopes of the enemy.

We as a nation must now re-affirm the goals this "near perfect" constitution set forth, re-assess our reasons for them, and re-evaluate the methods we will use to attain them. We as individuals must decide whether or not we will be a part of that effort.

The goals of our founding brothers:

And . . .

The reasons for the goals were inherent and stated as a part of the expression of the goals.

And…

The Declaration of Independence was the promise they made to themselves and each other to strive for the goals stated, and the Constitution was the fulfillment of the promise in the form of the agreed upon steps necessary for reaching their goals. In the declaration they promised to each other their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in the endeavor for life and the pursuit of happiness through individual freedom and personal liberties. In the Constitution they put that life, fortune, and sacred honor on the table for all to see and to make it available if needed by their partners. These men personally put it all on the line for the insurance of success that all citizens would eventually benefit from.

Can we, today, define any more perfect aspirations or goals than theirs? To live a life where no one, especially not a king or dictator, determines how your life will be lived. To have a nation as home where any person is free to move about in the pursuit of his idea of what should be.

Can we, today, design any more righteous method to attain those goals than by starting fresh and new and establishing a government that is built from the ground up by the people, for the people, and is made up of those people? It was then and remains today an inspired and honorable path to tread in pursuit of our lofty aspirations, and we have become the nation that the rest of the world patterns their behavior after if they, too, feel the need to be free and commit theselves to procuring that prize for themselves.

We face a different enemy than the founding brothers saw looming at their door. We face religious zealots who call for the total destruction of any form of government other than that of their religious laws, and for the anihillation of any and all who oppose them. There is no place for mediation in their world, only submission to their laws or death. Tolerance, pursuit of happiness, freedom through liberty for all is a stronger and more inviting temptation than is succumb or die.

We also face an enemy from within, a domestic threat to our great experiment of self-governance. This threat comes from a lack of responsibility on the part of those who would voluntarily sacrifice all personal liberty for the perceived comfort of being governed rather than being the governors. They see a government chosen by the people as corrupt, greedy, and inefficient at giving all to everyone. They would rather do nothing and live minimally than work for a higher life quality. All they have to do to destroy our Constitution is vote for its demise. That is their perception of their pursuit of happiness, but not mine.

Our pursuit and defense of that pursuit is now as it was when our forefathers declared: "as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES we have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do."

It has become necessary that every person examine their own resolve to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the common goal of a free America, doing as Franklin saw the need and setting aside personal objections for the greater good of the people.

You must make your own decision about your choice of goals and how to achieve them. You need to decide what form of government you will support, theirs or ours. You must make your own choice about the future you would pursue and decide whether it will be them, or the US you will support. Then you must, if you honestly expect success in attaining your goals, declare your life, fortune, and sacred honor to be one with your fellow Americans regardless of party affiliation, and let no one outside our band of brothers see the objections and disagreements within lest the enemy receive hope and satisfaction from it

It is still just as true and important that we honor its meaning now as it has ever been to do so. Never let anyone take from us what so many have died to keep, our freedom.

Glenn Flowers

Re: President Barack H. Obama’s Eligibility To Be Our President

Nowhere in history is Natural Born Citizen defined in such a way that would allow a person with divided loyalties to become President! It is a fact that Obama was born a subject of the British Crown. He openly admits his father is a British Subject at the time of his birth.

Here are several references to the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. I implore you, URGENTLY, to investigate on your own:

Our Nation is at grave risk. This issue MUST be addressed. Citizens across this nation, to include myself, are asking this question: Is Obama qualified to be our President and Commander in Chief. The public protests are beginning.

There is a significant movement and it is spreading like an impassioned grassfire. To assume it will go away is foolhardy. Furthermore, the usurpation of our Constitution threatens the very survival of our Union!

Our military is in jeopardy of becoming divided over this issue. With these lawsuits; one solider today, another tomorrow, and now our loyal service men and woman are in personal jeopardy!

 The survival of our nation is at stake. This issue will not go away.

For whatever political and historical reasons we have come to this dire situation, you are the person empowered by Congress to file a Quo Warranto on behalf of the United States. As an American Citizen and a retired military Veteran, I implore you to please Issue a Quo Warranto to provide The USA citizenry an answer to this constitutionally vital question.

Federal statute (Chapter 35§ 16-3501) for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto:

1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion - which is the best way this could happen. No leave of the court need be requested. There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.

2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as "third persons" and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States. If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well. And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.

3. If the Government will not give consent, then "interested persons" may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be - according to SCOTUS in Newman - restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.

The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, i.e. POTUS, is exempt by the statute.

For your information, I have also taken the liberty to include the following web sites, which will hopefully provide you with other evidence relating to this issue, that I believe support my concerns.. This evidence was meticulously put together by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., 26302 La Paz ste 211, Mission Viejo Ca 92691, ph-949-683-5411 fax 949-586-2082 and some were shared with Mr. Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, Main 202-514-2000, Attorney General 202-353-1555,http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/ on or about February 27, 2009 and hand delivered to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John J. Roberts on or about March 12, 2009:

Open Letter From Brigadier General Charles Jones: Posted By Dr. Taitz-On February 4, 2009:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/05/open-letter-from-brigadier-general-charles-jone.aspx

Col. Riley-Former Division Chief National Security Agency Joins Our Action: Posted By Dr. Taitz-On February 23, 2009:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/23/col-riley-former-division-chief-national-security-agency-joins-our-action-2.aspx

Major General-Commanding General Carroll D. Childers Joins Military Suit : Posted By Dr. Taitz-On February 24, 2009:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/24/major-general-commanding-general-carroll-d-childers-joins-military-suit.aspx

Motion to Reconsider Lightfoot V Bowen:Hand Delivered To U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John J. Roberts: Hand Delivered and Posted By Dr. Taitz-On March 12, 2009:

http://defendourfreedoms.org/motiontoreconsiderLightfootvBowen.htm

Dossiers and Getting The Word Out: Posted By Dr. Taitz-On March 19, 2009:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/19/dossiers-and-getting-the-word-out.aspx

Dr. Orly Taitz's Interview By Rollye James: Posted By Dr. Taitz-On March 19, 2009:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/19/orly-taitzs-interview-by-rollye-james.aspx

This is a Chalice Radio Talk Show interview with Mr. Leo Donofrio, which I also took the liberty of sharing with you, as a means of providing you with more background information relating to this issue:

The Chalice Show - Leo Donofrio Live: On March 18, 2009:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/PatriotsHeartNetwork/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/03/19/The-Chalice-Show-Leo-Donofrio-Live

I have also attached a copy of my resume for your review.

Please let me know if you have any questions on this time sensitive and urgent issue.

Disclaimer: Although I share numerous resources with you, as a means of supporting my concerns, it does not necessarily mean that I support and/or agree with the contents of all of them, word-by-word, but find them thought provoking because, they provide me with other views besides my own and, thereby, help me make my case.

As a retired Marine Corps Veteran Officer (Mustang), I pride myself with loving my God, family, friends and my country. Those Military and/or Veteran Comrades, that I am honored to call friends, know that I would never intentionally say or do anything that would hurt or demean anyone, to include my God and Country.

I have always preached to my own family and follow the rule of "filtering everything that comes from my brain through my heart before it comes out of my mouth" and this rule has done me well for almost 62 years of my life and would highly recommend it to anyone that dares to share their own views with others, knowing that they may not have the same views, but are able and willing to accept that and not take it personal.

I also consider the sharing of these concerns to be given me under our "FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS", which I consider as one of the corner stones of our "Constitution’s 1st Amendment," and, as an American Citizen, I believe that it is my "God Given Duty" to stand up for and defend this or any other rights given me under our Constitution, as other God and Country loving Americans in uniform have done in the past and continue to this date.

I seek your immediate response to my grave concern.

See the townhall blog by Capt. Martinez

This is the key to challenging Obama’s eligibility. It answers, specifically, the court’s reasoning for dismissing all other cases.

The US Attorney for D.C., Jeffery Taylor, needs to be convinced that the We the People of America are truly concerned about Obama’s eligibility. If he sees that there is a substantial number of citizens who are truly concerned about the nation’s well being, he might decide to file the suit on our behalf. If he does, it can not be dismissed, it must go to trial.

Let Jeffery Taylor hear from you. Let’s give this one more BIG effort for the sake of our country. This is the procedure I’ve been searching for. This is why all other cases failed.

Dear Mr. Taylor:
As a citizen of the United States of America I have grave concerns for the security and overall well being of our great nation. These concerns arise from the fact that Barack Obama has stated in public and in his autobiography that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a British subject under British law at the time of Barack Jr’s. birth, which precludes Barack Obama from being eligible for the office of president as required.

It is a fact that Obama has openly admitted that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and that that extended the father’s citizenship to him.

There have been numerous suits filed addressing this, only to be dismissed because of lack of standing. The public has become outraged from being told that they have no right to file a suit, or that the Constitution doesn’t apply anymore. Many protests have taken place and more will.

3. If the Government will not give consent, then "interested persons" may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be - according to SCOTUS in Newman - restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.

Dear Mr. Taylor:
As a citizen of the United States of America I have grave concerns for the security and overall well being of our great nation. These concerns arise from the fact that Barack Obama has stated in public and in his autobiography that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a British subject under British law at the time of Barack Jr’s. birth, which precludes Barack Obama from being eligible for the office of president as required, (Section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States) calling for the President to retain a special status of natural born citizen in order to qualify for eligibility to that office.

I have researched the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" as written in the Federal Papers by Justice John Jay. It defines "Natural Born" as being born of two US citizens who are under no other jurisdiction or allegiance. Nowhere in history is Natural Born Citizen defined in such a way that would allow a person with divided loyalties to become President!

This definition of citizenship has a long history in British Common Law and the framers were very familiar with the concept. In 1677 a law was passed intended to insure that a child born to a British couple would be a British subject, even if born aboard a ship or on foreign territory. This was to be citizenship by blood, not by soil. The framers drew upon this definition to establish a super class of citizen, applicable only to the eligibility for the office of president. They foresaw the possibility that a person NOT born and raised by US citizens, or by only one citizen, might not have the zeal and love for and dedication to this country and would act against the best interests of the People and the nation. Barack Obama has shown that he is a model of what the founders did NOT want to become president.

It is a fact that Obama has openly admitted that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and that that extended the father’s citizenship to him.

Our military is in jeopardy of becoming divided over this issue. With these lawsuits; one solider today, another tomorrow, questions whther or not he has a Commander in Chief.

For whatever political and historical reasons we have come to this dire situation, you alone are the person empowered by Congress to file a Quo Warranto on behalf of the People of the United States. As an American citizen and a military veteran, I implore you to please address this Constitutional dilemma and issue and a Quo Warranto and provide the People of the USA a lawful answer to this constitutional question.

Federal statute (Chapter 35§ 16-3501) for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto:

1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion - which is the best way this could happen. No leave of the court need be requested. There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.

2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as "third persons" and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States. If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well. And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.

3. If the Government will not give consent, then "interested persons" may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be - according to SCOTUS in Newman - restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.

The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, i.e. POTUS, is exempt by the statute.

If I can be of any assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me.

We, the People, hear much these days of the polarization of the two dominant political parties in their views of what America is, what it should be, and how to make it so. They label we, the People, as liberal, conservative, moderate, and even far left or right. What we seldom, if ever hear about is just how much we, the People, are alike, wanting the same results, seeing the road before us clearly, and generally agreeing on all the major societal issues confronting us. But it is so. This is one case where the press, politicians, and other experts just don’t get the picture.

We, the People, the average, voting aged American, all pursue the American dream. The goal is to work hard, earn a living plus a little to save, eventually buying a piece of Earth with our castle on it. We all become equal in this pursuit and its realization. The ultimate success is to, one day, pass that ownership of property and its responsibilities and rights, on to our children, giving them a head start to an even better and bigger piece of the pie.

We all know that the framers of the Constitution believed in a divine creator whose guidance was imperative in the building of this nation. We, for the most part, are a people who believe in God, in one form or another, and we know that we are the better person for it. We all agree that humankind has the right, from birth to death, to be free from unnecessary restriction, to be able to pursue our idea of happiness, yet not infringe on the right of others to do the same. We are tolerant of differing ideas of God and of no god. We tend to live and let live. But we are also intolerant of any form of oppression, tyranny, inhumanity, or forced allegiance. We have learned, the hard way, that no man should be forced to serve another as his lesser. Most of we, the People, have grown up with the idea that the color of a man’s skin is no indication one way or another of the content or nature of his soul or mind. We are all, everyone of us, equal in our birthright, our place at the table, our expectations of humane treatment, and sincere respect by all at all times.

Yes, in the ways that really define what and who we are, we are all human beings first, mothers, fathers, or siblings second, and third, and sometimes the most influential aspect of our lives, we are Americans. Let us all agree to unite in a common effort to better our lives and to seek to help others wherever we can, and to do it in the true American way.

In these beliefs, I believe, we all agree…

1. That the Constitution, as originally written, provides a guarantee that the rights we were born with will be respected and not violated by our government.
2. That we, the People, are the authority having jurisdiction over our lives and property, and that members of government are empowered by us to do our work for our sake, the main work being the protection of our lives and property against all foreseeable perils.
3. That the government should not encumber us with any form of restrictive, infringing legislation that limits our pursuit of personal fulfillment, except that action that would deny that right to others.
4. That the taking of hard earned wealth from one house and giving it to another house, is the sole right of the individual according to his conscience, and is not the right of government by taxation or redistribution by law.
5. That the most efficient means of supplying the needs of the People is an open, largely unregulated free market where the providing of a quality product or service, the earning of a fair profit, and the creation of employment opportunity are the ultimate goals.
6. That the success of one is not to be chided, but celebrated, and the lack of success is not to be scorned when honest effort is made. That regardless of financial success or lack of it, the person still is equal in all humanly aspects. His success is his personal quest not to be graded by others.
7. That we, as a free nation, have a duty to endeavor for all men to be free when it is within our power and will to so strive. That we will not, out of indifference or laziness, allow human beings to be subjugated by those seeking power over the People at the expense of their human birthright of freedom.
8. That we are NOT an empirical nation and will not seek to conquer, occupy, or in any way restrict the freedom of other nations or people or force our will or beliefs on others, but will fight to prevent that from being their fate if it be agreeable to them.
9. That we, the People, are blessed to live in a land where the law rules over all, and no one is rightfully immune to that law. That no amount of wealth, stature, chance of birth, inheritance, nor might will determine the worth of a life, but only the life itself be valued above all else.
10. That our voice and our vote are our best and only tools with which to control the government, providing that government has not become tyrannical or unconstitutional. And even under such extreme conditions, a full overhaul and repair is preferable to a destruction and rebuilding of the structure of our society.
11. That the truly deserving of all respect and honor are those who, without hesitation or pause, stand between us and harm, selflessly assuming the duty of defender of the People as our uniformed armed services. To them go the most dear of all thanks and good will, and shall not be disrespected or made to be shamed. They are the innocently brave.

If we all can agree on those premises of what America is and should be, then let us unite and stop the name calling between each other, put away all less important differences, and vote to take back the America we believe in by ridding ourselves of those who seek to divide us for their own purposes.

We all know that the majority of people in government office and those seeking such a position, are willing to lie, cheat, and steal, and in anyway they can be elected or re-elected, not for the reason of doing their duty as our representative, but for the distinct purpose of obtaining their share of the wealth being stolen by them from we, the People. It is the overwhelming driving force behind the career politician. We have never seen a poor man elected and the same poor man retire from public office. We rarely see a poor man elected. Ninety-nine percent of the time we see well off lawyers get elected then retire after six or twelve or more years as extremely wealthy lawyers. Is this the way it should be? Thirty Trillion dollars of our money each year goes to government to supposedly provide protection to we, the People. We are being fleeced, robbed, cheated, extorted, conned, cajoled, and lied out of our hard earned rewards. And they don’t even try to hide or disguise it for the most part. In fact, they are so brazen as to tell us they need to control our wealth for us because they see the bigger picture, and it’s too much for us to comprehend, just trust them.

Right. Trust them to eventually control every part of our lives to the finest detail, rather than leaving us alone to pursue our own dreams. Trust them to selfishly, egotistically deny us the use of those resources belonging to we, the People. Trust them to tax those providing the necessities of life and jobs for the People so much that they choose not to provide those needs any longer. Trust them to severely regulate our deny us our choice of health care, retirement plans, automobiles, foods, drink, housing, means of travel, education opportunity, advancement in the workplace, eligibility for college, religious expression, light bulbs, transfats, ability to express our views, limit illegal insurgencies, control the granting of entitlements and privileges, what is taught to our children, whether our pets are spayed or neutered, what our pastors can preach from the pulpit, who we must show respect deserving or not, what we can do to influence our elected officials, what prices we pay for goods, and everything possible about our lives. Yes, only they know what is best for we, the People.

We, the People, desperately need to unite to reclaim America in a lawful revolution against dishonest, felonious politicians by voting EACH AND EVERY INCUMBENT out of office in each election cycle until no member of congress remains with more than four years in office. We can then re-evaluate our choices and decide who should remain. We, need to search our ballots for the candidate with the least experience in government or law, seeking, instead, that sincere, common man or woman, the airline pilot, taxi driver, bowling alley owner, pizza maker, or plumber who wants only to be given the honor to be allowed to do his best at representing those who vote for him in the best, most dedicated way he knows how. We should allow for a learning process where smart people change their minds when logic is convincing. We should not excoriate them for taking initiative in their duty and doing the best for the majority. We should allow them the latitude necessary to compromise where it is expedient or worthwhile, but hold them to the basic principals of honesty and integrity they promised to maintain. If things are broke, we, the People should be informed so. We should not be tricked or led astray by false pretenses of well being. We should also demand term limitations, with the right of bypass by the People to those limits when we deem it the correct decision by our vote. We should also impose severe salary and benefits limitations similar to those experienced by the common workers in positions of public service. Make the protection of the American dream and the enabling of the People to pursue it the biggest prize for representing the People. After all, we are, the People whom the government is for, of and by, and to serve in our stead is a privilege in and of itself.

So then, let’s unite and shake up the congressional universe. Let’s unite in our vote to purge the building with the dome of the liars and usurpers of our freedom and wealth. Let’s vote all incumbents out and start anew for our sake, and for the sake of America.

God, please bless America.

Sincerely,
Glenn Flowers - American

I am not joking and I did not mean that metaphorically. If any military combat officer would just look at the result of what Obama and Pelosi have done already, it becomes obvious.

His strategy is to make gas and diesel hard to find and expensive. Lower the cash available to the common citizen. Make it impossible to buy fuel and ammo even if you could find it. Lower American’s personal wealth and give it to those living in grass huts overseas. Equality per Obama.

Pelosi has virtually destroyed domestic oil production requiring us to import 70% of our fuel. There is probably less than five days supply of fuel in the country right now

Cash will be in even shorter supply when the cap and trade bill takes effect as soon as April. Add to that massive tax increases to pay for the $80,000 for your share of the spending bills, the loss of savings and investments and you are near broke all the time. Your bill for the spending will increase by 100% by year’s end.

Ammunition is almost non-existant and will sky rocket in cost very soon. An Ammunition Accountability Act will, supposedly, be ready in early April that will add a surcharge from $2.00 to $5.00 PER ROUND, depending on caliber. .22 cal will be $2.00 per round for a total of approx. $120.00 for a box of fifty. 30 caliber and above (303, 30-06, .38, .44, .45) will be $5.00 surcharge per round for a total of approx. $280.00 for a box of fifty.

Obama is stripping the people of their ability to pursue happiness or him.

The physicist who was science advisor to both Bushes and Clinton spoke at the Global Convention on Climate Change last week and said, "Every $10 million spent by governments on climate change, bio-fuel production, and wind or solar programs programs means one human dies from starvation. Since the end of DDT sales near 30 years ago between 30 and 35 million people, mostly children, have died from malaria.

If only one half of all climate change bills presently before all the world governments were to be approved, the standard of living for the average earthling would decline by over 50%. These liberal environmentalists, climate change alarmists, radical socialist tyrants, and the UN will have all the wealth and the power."

The entire population of the world, including the US, would be almost equal in wealth.

It is ALL coming to a tent city near you soon !! Courtesy of liberals around the world and our own Barack Ovomit.

Check out David Limbaugh’s column on this very subject…

http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2009/03/13/obamas_relentless_war_on_the_american_dream

Glenn Flowers

I have succeeded in reading the meat of HR-1, known as the Stimulus Bill (only 674 pages, not the 1100+ reported), and would like to disprove the lies that HR-1 advocates or demands older citizens be evaluated to determine their eligibility to receive health care, and that they may be denied care if they are determined to be too old to warrant the cost. This is just not true. It is not in the stimulus bill anywhere. In fact, the HITECH section (Div. A, Title IV) states more than once that special attention and action will be required to insure care is readily available for those with non-standard health care needs such as the elderly. Nowhere in the bill does it state that the elderly should accept that they are getting old or that they are going to die. There is also no mention anywhere that research into new and better drugs and medical procedures will or should be limited. Again, the opposite is demanded by the bill.

These false claims about the bill seem to have originated at bloomberg.com with featured writers intermingling the wording of HR-1 with excerpts from Tom Daschle’s book Crtitical: What We Can Do About the Healthcare Crisis. If one pays attention to these writers’ placement of quotation marks it is easy to see their intent to mislead the reader. They quote from the book as if it is part and parcel to the bill. They headline: "Seniors Hardest Hit" and then start quoting Daschle’s book regarding elderly accepting the conditions of aging instead of treating them. Which is which? Are they saying seniors are hardest hit by the bill, or by Daschle’s book? They imply the former then quote the latter. This is dishonest, intentional, and typical of the liberal MSM, but is never accepted or embraced by true conservatives.

I do not, in any way support this stimulus bill as I believe it is outright theft and a blueprint for implementing socialist government in America. But I also do not support dishonesty or misrepresentation by strategic quoting, or spreading of rumor by any party for any reason, especially those claiming to be conservative. They give us all a harder row to hoe.

Glenn Flowers

There is much talk and debate in the Republican party leadership, elected officials, and, to a lesser degree, among the registered voters, as to what policies and agenda the party needs to adopt to gain support and to win elections. There are Republicans in the US Congress, state legislatures, and who are state executives who believe that the core values of conservatism, as expressed by Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. and Ronald Reagan, are no longer valid, popular, or embraced by the majority of American voters. They say, "the Reagan era is over", or that our party must move toward the center of the political spectrum in order to attract this or that voter group. The era of conservatism is passed, conservative values are centuries behind and are not in step with modern America they claim. After all, they say, the idea is to win elections. They use polls and demographic surveys to make the argument that the opposition party fails to attract the centrist groups and that the GOP should take advantage of this and redefine our platform to attract them on election day. To this I answer nonsense and BAULDERDASH!!

While the formal platform of the Democratic party gives one the notion that they are the party of equality, of the common man, for individual liberty and opportunity, for the best interests of the down trodden and those left behind in the progress of our nation, their policies and actions as government officials are, by design, contrary in every way to their public platform and the promises made by their candidates, and, even more so are the official actions, laws passed, and opinions expressed by their elected officials. The damage done to our nation by liberal, leftist Democrats in office and those who support them, is incalculable, undeniable by any reasonable person, and leaves those voting for them wondering why they never see the changes the Democrats promise.

The platform of the Conservative faction of the Republican party begins with these words, "We, The People of the United States", The only group the Conservatives declare allegiance to is the one who originally wrote those words and the words that follow them and those who, today, still live and die by that great document as the only acceptable law of the land.

Those Republicans who are trying to determine the future of the party, advocating a re-alignment this way or that, trying to modernize the thinking and popularity of conservatism are no more or less than liberals with a different grass skirt. True American patriots who know, understand, appreciate, and defend the Constitution for the exceptional, near perfect template for governement that it is, are, regardless of party affiliation, conservative minded Americans. Likewise, anyone declaring that the Constitution is just a piece of paper with more laws of men claiming divine inspiration, believeing it outdated and ripe for replacement are, whether registered democrat or republican, actually leftist liberals, unappreciative of and spoiled to the core by the fact that they have never seen their liberties in true peril, and have never had to earn or work to protect those rights themselves.

The Conservative movement should not have any confusion or disagreement as to the policies they will pursue, promises they make, or their voting record in office. If these promises of how they will govern are in accordance with the letter and intent of the Constitution and its founders it is worthy of support all the way into the voting booth and beyond. If you can not find the policies and ideas they express and support in the Constitution or in direct support of it, they are not to be taken as conservative, patriotic, or a choice for possible future governmental action. They are, instead, enemies of America being worthy of our contempt, disgust, opposition, and public rebuke. We need not be polite but, likewise, profanity, character assasination, and dishonesty are to be avoided at all costs as they serve only to render us invalid as they do the democrat political machine.

Truth, provable and factually indisputable; sincerity, humble and silently apparent; enthusiasm in and for the American opportunity; loyalty to the Constitution and the concept from which it was created; and the fierce, tireless, abject opposition of the leftist liberals as the enemy within should be the only platform of all patriotic Americans, and in all honesty, the Republican National Party.

Glenn Flowers